“TWO *REAL* GUNS POINTED AT ME”: how the FBI raided Anonymous

The FBI yesterday executed 40 search warrants around the US to gather evidence on the Anonymous distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in defense of WikiLeaks last year—attacks which targeted Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and Amazon. And when the FBI comes a-knockin', the whole house starts a rockin'.

Ars has seen posts from a private forum in which several targets of the FBI raids offer brief descriptions of the experience, along with the occasional photo of a beaten-in front door. We cannot guarantee the authenticity of these accounts, though we believe them to be genuine.

A note of context: "LOIC" here refers to the Low Orbit Ion Cannon, a software tool used in the Anonymous DDoS attacks that can flood a network connection with data.

I used LOIC during that whole Wikileaks fiasco. The FBI showed up at my door with a search warrant for any electronic devices that may have been used in the attack. That means any and all computers, unless I pointed out to them which one was used in the attack. I'm not retarded, I invoked my 5th amendment rights and didn't say anything so now they are taking everything. Yes, I'm f**king dumb. No, I didn't have time to thermite the hard drive. I'm worried that the FBI might stumble upon this site due to all the :filez: on my computer.

A second account showed a similar level of, err, enthusiasm on the part of the FBI.

took 3.5 hrs, all electronic devices taken including 3 computers. said nearly nothing. finally left.

The post and a shot of the front door, post-FBI

On sites like Reddit, hearsay was the norm. "A coworker of mine just came in and said her house got raided by the FBI last night," wrote one poster. "Apparently her son was using a bot, didn't cover his tracks and got caught plain as day… I reiterate my point—nothing will come of their home being raided. The mom wasn't even that upset. More just wanted to know what it was all about and what 4chan and anon are since the FBI was asking her a bunch of questions about it. She had no idea what they were talking about."

The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability."

Update: as one of our commenters points out, another forum offers even more details about what was taken. The guy who had the *REAL* GUNS pointed him lost his "iphone 4, main computer, media center pc, work laptop x1000, xbox 360, ps3, wii, 3 thumb drives, about 15 burned CDs/DVDs, gf's acer laptop, [and] gf's mom's toshiba laptop."

They started it!

Similar raids took place in the UK, resulting in the detention of five suspects. In response, someone claiming to speak for Anonymous issued a manifesto (PDF) against the UK government in the name of "us, Anonymous, the people."

The document says that the DDoS attacks were little more than peaceful protests:

As traditional means of protest (peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins, the blocking of a crossroads or the picketing of a factory fence) have slowly turned into nothing but an empty, ritualised gesture of discontent over the course of the last century, people have been anxiously searching for new ways to pressure politicians and give voice to public demands in a manner that might actually be able to change things for the better. Anonymous has, for now, found this new way of voicing civil protest in the form of the DDoS, or Distributed Denial of Service, attack. Just as is the case with traditional forms of protest, we block access to our opponents' infrastructure to get our message across.

Besides, the main Wikileaks site was hit with a DDoS attack first; are the authorities breaking down doors to solve that case? "We have noted that similar attacks have also been carried out against Wikileaks itself, yet so far, nobody has been arrested in connection with these attacks, nor are there even any signs of an investigation into this issue at all," the manifesto continues. "Yet, we know exactly who was responsible for that attack. Anonymous believes it is unfair and hypocritical to attempt to put these 5 arrested anons to trial without even attempting to find those who DDoS'ed a website which you oppose."

True anonymity on the Internet is tough to come by—even for Anonymous.

In a criminal trespass case, don't you have to make a complain with the police in order for it to be investigated? If someone comes into my house and I fix the lock and don't tell anyone? Do we have proof that WL ever filed a complaint? And who is this "who" that the manifesto alleges attacked WL?

I'm glad these Anon guys are reaping what they sew - which basically amounts to digital graffiti/vandalism.

Okay, more serious thoughts. You're *willingly* putting your home IP address as part of a denial of service attack against a commercial entity. On behalf of a 'stateless actor'. An anonymous one. Brilliant!

Honestly, no matter how I feel about DDoS attacks in general and those perpetrated by Anonymous (childish in both regards, if you must know), kicking down doors is just asinine. Worse, since no investigation of the DDoS attacks against Wikileaks is being pursued, it would appear an entirely biased operation. This administration appears simply to be an extension of the former administration, or, as the Who used to say:

Is to be expected. Though, I wonder if these are just some random anons using LOIC or if they are actually anyone of direction in the whole thing. I don't see how making your computer repeatedly load a website is punishable by 10 years in federal prison, nor do I accept the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize that idea.

I don't expect the FBI to ever look into the Wikileaks DDoS attacks, though, which is infuriating on its own as it just goes to show that the law biased and increasingly irrelevant as a guide for society.

Karoch Sharon wrote:

I'm glad these Anon guys are reaping what they sew - which basically amounts to digital graffiti/vandalism.

If the FBI ever decide to raid my house (wrong address?) I hope they knock politely instead of busting in my door. I like my door how it is (unbusted).

That troubles me greatly. I don't see how there was any sort of urgency or immediate threat to evidence that merited the FBI engaging in wanton destruction of property. I suspect most of Anon would have opened the door if they had simply knocked.

Comparing this to sit-ins, etc. seems simply inaccurate. If you sit-in and block access to a business, you get forcibly removed by police or arrested. The forcible removal or arrest itself is a part of the protest -- it is designed to generate more interest, and, hopefully, sympathy for injustice.

Anonymous appears to have made dupes out of many sympathetic supporters, and use methods in effort to avoid detection. It ain't a sit-in; if we must use metaphors, it's a lot more like vandalism.

If the FBI ever decide to raid my house (wrong address?) I hope they knock politely instead of busting in my door. I like my door how it is (unbusted).

That troubles me greatly. I don't see how there was any sort of urgency or immediate threat to evidence that merited the FBI engaging in wanton destruction of property. I suspect most of Anon would have opened the door if they had simply knocked.

I'm guessing the worry was destruction of evidence. Note the first comment above: "No, I didn't have time to thermite the hard drive."

If the FBI ever decide to raid my house (wrong address?) I hope they knock politely instead of busting in my door. I like my door how it is (unbusted).

That troubles me greatly. I don't see how there was any sort of urgency or immediate threat to evidence that merited the FBI engaging in wanton destruction of property. I suspect most of Anon would have opened the door if they had simply knocked.

I can copy/paste out of previous discussions on Ars about how many plan on destroying evidence if OMG GUMINIT. In that case, supries secks searches are precisely warranted.

While gathering evidence is completely expected and justified, the FBI and local SWAT teams are way to eager to break shit; these are computer geeks not violent offenders. Worse, they don't pay you back. I knew a guy here in town that had his doors busted and everything in his house turned upside down, because someone falsely accused him of running a meth operation. He was never compensated for the damage the cops caused.

Is to be expected. Though, I wonder if these are just some random anons using LOIC or if they are actually anyone of direction in the whole thing. I don't see how making your computer repeatedly load a website is punishable by 10 years in federal prison, nor do I accept the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize that idea.

I don't expect the FBI to ever look into the Wikileaks DDoS attacks, though, which is infuriating on its own as it just goes to show that the law biased and increasingly irrelevant as a guide for society.

Karoch Sharon wrote:

I'm glad these Anon guys are reaping what they sew - which basically amounts to digital graffiti/vandalism.

Categorically incorrect. Please stop posting this garbage.

Were the WikiLeaks servers that were DDoS'ed in the US? If not, I wonder if the FBI would have jurisdiction to investigate. Anyone know for sure?

Comparing this to sit-ins, etc. seems simply inaccurate. If you sit-in and block access to a business, you get forcibly removed by police or arrested. The forcible removal or arrest itself is a part of the protest -- it is designed to generate more interest, and, hopefully, sympathy for injustice.

Anonymous appears to have made dupes out of many sympathetic supporters, and use methods in effort to avoid detection. It ain't a sit-in; if we must use metaphors, it's a lot more like vandalism.

Safer civil disobedience is still civil disobedience, regardless how lessened the nobility of the act is in your opinion. The arrest is not part of the protest, unless you are willing to say that all participants in protest are not actually protesting until they are arrested. Also, I'd rather you not use metaphors, because you apparently can't use them correctly.

Edit: The other option for a sit in's resolution is that the requests are met. The arrest or removal is not a requirement for the classification.

I'm worried that the FBI might stumble upon this site due to all the :filez: on my computer.

Judging by the contents of some of the boards on that vulgar site, some Anonymous caught in the raids might also be nailed by child pornography and depravity laws because of the :filez: on their computers. I'm anxiously awaiting the headlines.

I'm sorry, but I would love to participate with anonymous as they take down egypt and when they took down tunisia for their phishing attacks on their own people. I see it as a corrupt regime silencing people, and the anonymity of the internet giving them the capability to speak out. That is a noble act, though not as noble as actually going there and doing human rights observation, every little bit counts.

But when you attack a corporation it's terrorism and vandalism? For decades the United States tried through (really horrible) diplomacy for years to engender that kind of democracy, but instead the blowback resulted in an even worse world order. And now, because of this federal clampdown here, it makes me not willing to commit some cycles to a protest over there. That's unfortunate, at best

As traditional means of protest (peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins, the blocking of a crossroads or the picketing of a factory fence) have slowly turned into nothing but an empty, ritualised gesture of discontent over the course of the last century, people have been anxiously searching for new ways to pressure politicians and give voice to public demands in a manner that might actually be able to change things for the better. Anonymous has, for now, found this new way of voicing civil protest in the form of the DDoS, or Distributed Denial of Service, attack. Just as is the case with traditional forms of protest, we block access to our opponents' infrastructure to get our message across.

Even if this were true, and I'm not sure I buy it, part of 'sit-ins' as protest is getting arrested. They don't get a free pass because they're protesters: quite the opposite. They're begging to be arrested. Why should DDoS kiddies be exempt from arrest?

Yet people who ruined our country continue to go unpunished, and continue to steal billions. At the very very worst they will pay a few millions in fines, for stealing billions from the public. This is a brave new world.This is just like former USSR - a guy gets busted for stealing a jar of sourcream to feed his family, while the party bosses who stole millions, went (and continue to this day) to go unpunished. They are the system.

Those kids enjoy their reputation of being skilled haxorz. You'd think they'd have the sense to pull such stunts from a coffee shop network or internet cafe, masking their NICs MAC address and paying cash for coffee.

Kicking down doors is pretty typical. Police procedures say you knock, wait a few seconds, then force the door open if nobody opens the door. The point is to prevent destruction of evidence. It doesn't sound like the FBI did anything besides kick down someone's door and take some computers, which to be honest, is a lot more restrained than what I would expect.

It is probably weak, but from layman's perspective, selective prosecution defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution) might make a lot of sense in this case. Especially since it is obviously politically motivated. And can be characterized as public decent suppression.

I'm worried that the FBI might stumble upon this site due to all the :filez: on my computer.

Judging by the contents of some of the boards on that vulgar site, some Anonymous caught in the raids might also be nailed by child pornography and depravity laws because of the :filez: on their computers. I'm anxiously awaiting the headlines.

Admissibility of evidence if it was gathered on a completely different warrant?

I'm really getting tired of this "the government sucks and is biased, they haven't investigated the Wikileaks DDoS" crap. No jurisdiction, no website cooperation, no credible evidence, no server logs, not a single shred of corporate or civil complaint filed. Give it up already. Yes, the federal government does not like wikilieaks. Yes, they would not go out of their way to search out the DDoS'ers who attacked it. Why should they? Would you go after those who beat the crap out of the guy who was talking smack about you, airing your private affairs?

And other than opinion, what evidence do you have to support that the government are the perpetrators of the WL DDoS?

Comparing this to sit-ins, etc. seems simply inaccurate. If you sit-in and block access to a business, you get forcibly removed by police or arrested. The forcible removal or arrest itself is a part of the protest -- it is designed to generate more interest, and, hopefully, sympathy for injustice.

Anonymous appears to have made dupes out of many sympathetic supporters, and use methods in effort to avoid detection. It ain't a sit-in; if we must use metaphors, it's a lot more like vandalism.

Safer civil disobedience is still civil disobedience, regardless how lessened the nobility of the act is in your opinion. The arrest is not part of the protest, unless you are willing to say that all participants in protest are not actually protesting until they are arrested. Also, I'd rather you not use metaphors, because you apparently can't use them correctly.

Edit: The other option for a sit in's resolution is that the requests are met. The arrest or removal is not a requirement for the classification.

Um the whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law, but as a form of peaceful protest. Being detained should be the expectation.

Safer civil disobedience is still civil disobedience, regardless how lessened the nobility of the act is in your opinion.

Then vandalism can be civil disobedience as well. And yes, it is most definitely less noble, and thus, will be very unlikely to generate the desired results. If you make yourself look like a hooligan, don't expect people to care very much when you get punished for it. Civil disobedience is very much about PR.

Quote:

The arrest is not part of the protest, unless you are willing to say that all participants in protest are not actually protesting until they are arrested.

Arrest and forcible ejection are most definitely part of the protest (or, perhaps said more accurately, are anticipated results which amplify the effect of the protest). It shows the length to which the people will go to protest: they put themselves in a position where they will be subject to arrest, forcible removal, or violence. It shows the depth of their feeling about the injustice they protest. It's part of the PR.

Quote:

Also, I'd rather you not use metaphors, because you apparently can't use them correctly.

Your assertion is laughable, given that you haven't actually addressed my point. If vandalism can be civil disobedience, why is this more like a sit-in than vandalism? Explain.

Play with fire and you'll end up getting burnt. Hopefully some people will learn that it's not a game.

Yeah, and nobody has anything to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong. Because the government never targets innocent people, or even steps outside the law in cases of even minimal amiguity, amirite?

If the FBI ever decide to raid my house (wrong address?) I hope they knock politely instead of busting in my door. I like my door how it is (unbusted).

That troubles me greatly. I don't see how there was any sort of urgency or immediate threat to evidence that merited the FBI engaging in wanton destruction of property. I suspect most of Anon would have opened the door if they had simply knocked.

I guess you didn't read this part: "No, I didn't have time to thermite the hard drive. I'm worried that the FBI might stumble upon this site due to all the :filez: on my computer."